1

Integration or isolation?:

Mapping social connections and

well-being amongst refugees in

Glasgow

Dr Alison B Strang

Institute for International Health & Development,

Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh

Neil Quinn

Positive Mental Attitudes

NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde

2

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, our thanks go to the Iranian and Afghan refugees in Glasgow who gave

freely of their time and shared their insights to contribute to this study. Some of them joined

the study independently and some through community groups – in order to preserve

confidentiality we will not mention the names of either individuals or these groups. However

we hope very much that this work will give voice to their perspectives and experiences and

help to improve the circumstances of refugees in Scotland.

This study was undertaken through collaboration between Positive Mental Attitudes, NHS

Greater Glasgow and Clyde North-East Health Improvement Team and the Institute for

International Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh1. It has been

made possible by financial support from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde North-East Health

Improvement Team. The guidance of the members of the Steering group (Janice Mitchell,

Glasgow City CHP; Marie Jones & Jim Battersby, Glasgow Housing Association; Joe Brady

& Elodie Mignard, Scottish Refugee Council; Irene Quinn & Wendy Gormley, John Wheatley

College; Donald Lawrie, North Glasgow Integration Network; Jackie Sunderland, Glasgow

Life; Waheed Totakhyl & Abdullah Spinger, Scottish Afghan Society) has provided important

direction on crucial decisions. Participants in the final stakeholders workshop helped to

shape the recommendations (see list in Appendix 5). We would particularly like to thank the

members of the Glasgow Housing Association NE sector team, Marie Jones, Jim Battersby

and Lesley Campbell and the members of their Concierge teams in Townhead and Sighthill

for their untiring support in making contact with Afghan and Iranian tenants. We are also very

grateful for the support of Joe Brady, Elodie Mignard and Mary Kate Dickie of the Scottish

Refugee Council Integration and Community Engagement teams in making links with

refugee community organisations.

The success of the workshops depended on the input of a team of colleagues from both

Positive Mental Attitudes and the Institute for International Health and Development

supporting administration, logistics and facilitation. In particular we would like to thank Ruth

Donnelly, Michelle Hunt, Linda McIntosh, Laura McEwing, Ruth Marsden, Bregje de Kok and

Fiona O’May – several of whom volunteered their free time. We are particularly grateful to

Peter Copeland of Lifelink for his attendance and sensitive support at all the workshops. In

addition the workshops were supported by a number of interpreters whose flexibility and

insight added greatly to the effectiveness of the work.

1http://www.qmu.ac.uk/iihd/default.htm

3

Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 5

Adverse Circumstances ......................................................................................... 6

Inactivity ................................................................................................................ 6

Lack of intimate relationships ................................................................................. 6

Lack of opportunity for reciprocity .......................................................................... 6

Developing a range of social connections .............................................................. 6

Awareness of services ........................................................................................... 6

Trust and fear of engagement ................................................................................ 7

Access to Rights .................................................................................................... 7

Integration or isolation? : Mapping social connections and well-being amongst refugees in

Glasgow .............................................................................................................................. 10

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 10

1.1. The Sanctuary programme ...................................................................................... 11

1.2. ‘Indicators of Integration’ study ................................................................................ 12

1.3. Promoting mental health and well-being amongst refugees in Glasgow .................. 13

1.4. Objectives of study .................................................................................................. 15

1.4.1. Who should we work with? .................................................................................. 15

1.4.2. What do we need to find out? .............................................................................. 16

2. Setting up the study ..................................................................................................... 17

2.1. Support, advice and collaboration ............................................................................ 17

2.2. Ethical considerations .............................................................................................. 18

2.3. Recruiting participants ............................................................................................. 18

2.4. Methods of investigation .......................................................................................... 19

2.4.1. The workshop programme ................................................................................... 20

2.4.2. Data Analysis....................................................................................................... 24

3. What we learnt ............................................................................................................. 25

3.1. Observations from the research process ................................................................. 25

4

3.1.1. Accessing ‘difficult-to-reach’ participants ............................................................. 25

3.1.2. Description of participants.................................................................................... 26

3.1.3. Biographical factors in relation to social connection ............................................. 27

3.1.4. Observations on the research workshops ............................................................ 29

3.2. Mapping Social Connections ................................................................................... 29

3.2.1. Awareness and Levels of Connection .................................................................. 30

3.2.2. Patterns of trust ................................................................................................... 35

3.2.3. Opportunities for reciprocity ................................................................................. 38

3.2.4. Observations on access to services ..................................................................... 41

3.3. Focus Group Discussions ........................................................................................ 42

3.3.1. Understandings of the term ‘good mental health’ ................................................. 42

3.3.2. How do other people react? ................................................................................. 45

3.3.3. Sources of help .................................................................................................... 46

3.3.4. ‘Self Help’ Strategies ........................................................................................... 49

4. Key Findings and Implications...................................................................................... 51

4.1. Key issues emerging ............................................................................................... 52

4.1.1. Adverse Circumstances ....................................................................................... 52

4.1.2. Inactivity .............................................................................................................. 53

4.1.3. Lack of intimate relationships ............................................................................... 53

4.1.4. Lack of opportunity for reciprocity ........................................................................ 54

4.1.5. Developing a range of social connections ............................................................ 54

4.1.6. Awareness of services ......................................................................................... 55

4.1.7. Trust and fear of engagement .............................................................................. 55

4.1.8. Access to Rights .................................................................................................. 56

4.2 Recommendations for policy & practice ................................................................... 57

References ......................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 62

5

Executive Summary

“Having all these different relationships - that helps you progress.”

(Iranian refugee participant, discussion group 3)

Government, policy makers and service providers across Scotland are committed to

promoting inclusion and equality in health and well-being for the 2,400 asylum seekers and

further 20,000 people with refugee status remaining in Scotland.2 However, this population

face multiple challenges to integration, well-being and mental health (Watters, 2001; Castles

et al., 2002; Threadgold & Court, 2005; Procter, 2006; Ager & Strang, 2008; Phillimore,

2012; Quinn, 2013). Currently most asylum seekers in Scotland are single men arriving

alone which leaves them very vulnerable to poor mental health exacerbated by isolation and

exclusion. This study draws on the work of the ‘Sanctuary programme’ (Quinn et al., 2011)

and the ‘Indicators of Integration’ study (Ager & Strang, 2008) to explore understandings of

mental health and well-being and relate these to social connection amongst refugees in

Glasgow.

Aims and approach of the study

The study sought to access a ‘hard-to-reach’ group: thirty single men from Iran and

Afghanistan were recruited to a series of research workshops held during 2013. The

workshops combined participatory activities, presentations from service providers, individual

tasks and group discussions. A qualified mental health professional provided support and

advice as needed. The data was collated to produce ‘maps’ of social connections indicating

the spectrum of social ‘bonds’, ‘bridges’ and ‘links’3 accessed by participants, along with

levels of trust and reciprocity of relationships. Systematic thematic analysis was used to

capture issues emerging from group discussion on understandings of mental health and

well-being.

2Scottish Government strategy: ‘New Scots: Integrating Refugees in Scotland’s Communities’, December 2013.See section 1.3

of this report for details. 3 Social Capital theory, Putnam, 2000.

6

Key findings

Adverse Circumstances

Participants see the main threat to their mental well-being as the adverse circumstances in

which they find themselves.4 Emphasis is placed on the impact of:

Chronic insecurity and instability due to the asylum process and unstable housing

situations.

The experience of major life transition leading to ‘culture shock’.

Poverty creates practical problems, inhibits strategies for problem resolution and

exacerbates isolation.

Inactivity

These refugees and asylum seekers recognise that it is very hard to maintain mental well-

being when you have, ‘…nothing to think about but your worries’. Solitary, sedentary

occupations can help, but getting out, taking exercise and meeting friends were seen as

better.

Lack of intimate relationships

Most of this group rely on the phone or internet for access to family. Some are successful in

developing close ‘bonding’ friendships (‘become like brothers’), but others are not - even

when they have been in Glasgow for several years.

Lack of opportunity for reciprocity

Limited opportunities for reciprocal relationships lead to a sense of dependency and lack of

opportunity for altruism which in itself is undermining to self-esteem and mental well-being.

Developing a range of social connections

These refugees are motivated to develop a range of social connections for emotional

support and also access to services. The data demonstrates that time alone is not enough to

achieve a mixture of ‘bonds’, ‘bridges’ and ‘links’.

Awareness of services

Awareness of services is lower than might be expected – participants either did not have

access to extensive informal networks, or their networks appeared to be detached from

wider support services. Some use the internet to access information.

4 Many other studies have similarly observed that the circumstances of resettlement play at least as much, if not a more major

part than pre-flight trauma in refugee mental health and well-being (e.g. Silove et al., 2000; Watters, 2010)

7

Trust and fear of engagement

This group are resistant to engagement with community activities and services. They

reported highest levels of trust in authority figures and lower levels of trust in third sector

agencies and community organisations.

Access to Rights

This group showed very little awareness of institutions in wider UK society, or of routes

through which they might challenge decisions or quality of service provision (for example

regarding housing or health care).

Address the causes of insecurity and instability

Policy advocacy to address delays in the asylum process, transition to new refugee

status, and family reunification.

Minimising home moving through enabling asylum seekers to remain in the same

property on receipt of status.

Ensure refugees have access to sustainable housing options within 28 days of

receiving status.

Poverty Leadership Panel’s Action Plan to reflect the experience of asylum

seekers and refugees.

Services and community groups to build in capacity to overcome poverty (e.g.

waiving membership or attendance fees, providing travel expenses, sharing costs).

Improve access and knowledge of free activities.

Recommendations

Address the causes of insecurity and instability, (uncertainty

of asylum claims, family reunion and poverty).

Provide support and accompaniment to asylum seekers and

refugees in tackling practical problems.

Support every asylum seeker and refugee to develop intimate

and reciprocal friendships.

Work through trusted people and organisations to signpost

information and build engagement with wider resources and

services.

8

Provide support and accompaniment to asylum seekers and refugees in

tackling practical problems

Strengthen advisory services (Migrant Help, Glasgow's Advice and Information

Network (GAIN5)

Extend peer mentoring schemes so that a mentor is available for every person.

Provide immediate access to language learning support on arrival in the country.

Language courses to incorporate cultural knowledge and colloquial uses of

language.

Training for mental health practitioners and other front-line service providers to

raise awareness of the pressures affecting asylum seekers and refugees.

Support every asylum seeker and refugee to develop intimate and reciprocal

friendships

Language courses should strategically support the opportunity to develop

friendships.

Housing providers to keep records of new refugees to facilitate support provision.

Housing Officers, Concierges, and other case workers to provide a unique link

between individual refugees and community groups and services.

Ensure every asylum seeker/refugee has access to a one-to-one relationship

through buddying, peer mentoring or accompanying.

Community planning partnerships should support building relationships between

refugees and people with Scottish and other backgrounds.

Service providers and community groups should build in opportunities for

volunteering.

Work through trusted people and organisations to signpost information and

build engagement with wider resources and services.

Welcome packs and other basic service information to be made available at time of

need and recognition of relevance.

A good quality, confidential interpretation service essential to ensure equitable

access to services and rights.

Policy makers and service providers should develop clear pathways in to and out

of services based on an understanding of the integration journey.

5GAIN: http://www.gain4u.org.uk/

9

Staff training on culturally appropriate engagement and signposting for asylum

seekers and refugees.

Key people and places that are already trusted should be mobilised to share

information.

Service providers to use the internet strategically, providing accessible information

and navigation.

Further Education Colleges to maintain and improve access to the internet through

access to computers on-line and access to IT skills.

10

Integration or isolation? : Mapping social connections and well-being amongst refugees in Glasgow

“… Now we are living in the age of communication. So really people, whether it’s a

person or a country, they are developed by how much they are in communication with

other people, whether that’s…to do with jobs, economy and also mental issues. Having

all these different relationships - that helps you progress.”

(Iranian refugee participant, discussion group 3)

1. Introduction

Whilst Scotland has always been a nation of immigration as well as emigration, the

beginning of the 21st century has seen a dramatic increase in numbers of people seeking

asylum and coming to live in Scotland as refugees. The trigger for this change has been the

introduction of the ‘Dispersal policy’ by the UK government in 1999 which meant that for the

first time asylum seekers were dispersed beyond the south east of England and around the

UK including to Glasgow where the National Asylum Support Service had a contract with

Glasgow City Council6 to house and support asylum seekers. As a result, since then the

population of refugees in Scotland has been growing, formal and informal services have

evolved in response, and local communities continue to adjust and change. According to

recent figures there are around 2,400 asylum seekers in Scotland (Scottish Government,

December 2013). In addition, the Scottish Refugee Council estimates that there could be as

many as 20,000 people with refugee status who are remaining in Scotland7 (there is no

official tracking of refugees post receiving status). Most asylum seekers arrive alone, with

only around 20% arriving with other family members. Two thirds are male and one third

female. Countries of origin reflect the conflict areas of the world, with the largest groups

during 2012/13 coming from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, Syria, India, Bangladesh,

Afghanistan, Nigeria and Albania (Home Office, 2013).

6 Initially the contract to house asylum seekers was with Glasgow City Council, subsequent contracts have been with the YMCA

and from 2013 with SERCO. 7http://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0000/5495/4087_SRC_Referendum_Report_V3.pdf

11

In December 2013 a new Scottish Government strategy was launched with the stated aim of

ensuring that:

“…refugees are able to build a new life from the day they arrive in Scotland and to

realise their full potential with the support of mainstream services; and where they

become active members of our communities with strong social relationships.” (Scottish

Government, 2013 p11)

This strategy reflects a current political climate that is welcoming to inward migration,

recognising both the human rights of refugees in particular, and the potential benefits to

Scottish society of ‘New Scots’. Nevertheless, the aims are ambitious. There is a

considerable body of literature documenting the experiences and impact of forced migration,

seeking asylum and resettling which demonstrates the multiple challenges to integration,

well-being and mental health that refugees face (Watters, 2001; Castles et al., 2002;

Threadgold & Court, 2005; Procter, 2006; Ager & Strang, 2008; Phillimore, 2012; Quinn,

2013). Most refugees will have suffered multiple losses and are very likely to have

experienced acutely distressing events before fleeing their homes. Journeys to find a place

of safety are commonly so frightening and degrading, that refugees are reluctant to talk

about this part of their story. On arrival, refugees experience a loss of identity and a loss of

rights. They feel powerless, not only lacking in language skills and confidence, but also

lacking in knowledge of how the new society works. At the same time they can be cut off

from others with a similar ethnic and/or cultural background and become emotionally and

socially isolated. Added to all this it has been observed that receiving countries tend to

house asylum seekers in already deprived communities with poor living conditions. This only

exacerbates exclusion through poverty and social deprivation (Phillimore & Goodson, 2008,

Mulvey, 2010).

Given this pattern of multiple stressors it is not surprising that many asylum seekers and

refugees suffer poor mental health which inhibits their progress in resettling and building

their own lives in a new place. Recent work has thrown light on the extent of poor mental

health amongst asylum seekers and refugees in Glasgow and also explored attitudes and

understandings of mental health issues.

1.1. The Sanctuary programme

Using evidence from a participatory action research process involving over 100 asylum

seekers and refugees in Scotland, the Sanctuary programme (Quinn et al., 2011) explored

participants’ views on mental health problems, stigma and discrimination. The study found

12

that migration can have adverse effects on mental health and well-being, due to racism and

the asylum process, and this is worsened by stigma and discrimination. This stigma is

influenced by both social and cultural causal factors, including fear, past trauma, isolation,

racism and the stress of the asylum process coupled with negative cultural beliefs about

mental health problems. Refugees who were already isolated showed a lack of awareness of

where to go for help and support, and a lack of trust of services and other members of the

community.

The initial research was followed up with a series of ‘Community Conversations’ organised in

collaboration with community groups8. Peer researchers were trained to facilitate

discussions on mental health issues in order to reduce stigma, promote recovery and

encourage health seeking. Participants reported benefit from joining the conversations,

gaining knowledge and confidence (Quinn et al., ibid).

This work has highlighted the extent of mental health problems, the impact of social isolation

and the benefits of bringing people together to share their experiences. These findings

resonate with the ‘Indicators of Integration’ study which compared areas of refugee

settlement in Glasgow and London and highlighted the centrality of social connections in

supporting effective integration.

1.2. ‘Indicators of Integration’ study

Ager and Strang undertook a programme of interviews and participatory activities with

refugees and settled residents to explore what made people feel ‘at home’ and ‘settled’

(Ager & Strang, 2008). The results for both groups were the same: being in relationship with

other people was what mattered most. Participants valued a whole range of relationships,

from the most superficial ‘hello’ across the street, to the need for intimate and trusted friends.

They talked about the importance of accessing services and knowing that all around had

equal rights. The ‘Indicators of Integration’ framework9 was developed to encompass these

shared values and reflects the fact that social connections are experienced as essential to

integration (Appendix 1). The framework draws on social capital theory and models of social

exclusion to elaborate the types of connections that are crucial for well-being:

Bonds (with people with whom I share a sense of identity) – for emotional support

and the sharing of informal local knowledge

8http://www.mosaicsofmeaning.info/

9 The ‘Indicators of Integration’ framework was developed for the UK Home Office in 2004 to provide a mechanism for shaping

and evaluating policy and practice on refugee integration. Ager & Strang, 2004.

http://www.migrationscotland.org.uk/sites/smp/files/documents/indicators_of_integration.pdf

13

Bridges (people with whom I can exchange resources) – for access to services and

the exchange of resources beyond those available from other people ‘like’ me

Links (with the structures and governance of society at large) – for access to rights

and contributing to the shaping of society.

(Putnam, 1993 & Woolcock, 1998)

Along with the Sanctuary Project, this evidence on integration reinforces the significance of

social connection for wellbeing. It is widely recognised that isolation directly impacts on

emotional health through the lack of emotional support. However isolation also leads to a

lack of local knowledge which in turn will impede access to services including general health

as well as mental health services. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that insecurity of

rights directly impacts well-being through engendering a sense of powerlessness and

exclusion as well as impeding the receipt of appropriate resources. It can be argued that the

negative impact of social isolation on mental health and well-being is likely to be cumulative

as each deprivation provokes others (Strang & Ager, 2010).

1.3. Promoting mental health and well-being amongst refugees

in Glasgow

It is clear that enabling refugees to ‘realise their full potential’, and ‘become active members

of our communities’, with ‘strong social relationships’ is a considerable challenge. As we

have seen, there are multiple factors undermining refugee and asylum seekers’ well-being

and it is well documented that refugees commonly suffer poor mental health. It is likely that

this will be exacerbated in areas of multiple deprivations such as North-East Glasgow, where

we see a twenty-year gap in male life expectancy compared with more affluent areas of

Glasgow (ScotPHO Community and Wellbeing Profiles, 201410).

Addressing mental health and well-being is a key policy priority at international, national and

local level. The World Health Organisation defines mental health and well-being as ‘a state

of well-being in which the individual realises his or her own abilities, can cope with the

normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a

contribution to his or her community’11. The Scottish Government’s ‘Towards a Mentally

Flourishing Scotland’ policy states that the ‘Scottish Government is committed to working to

improve the mental health of Scotland's people through ensuring that appropriate services

are in place, but also by working through social policy and health improvement activity to

10

http://www.scotpho.org.uk/opt/Reports/Profiles_2014_tech_report_v1.1.pdf 11

http://www.who.int/topics/mental_health/en/

14

reduce the burden of mental health problems and mental illness and to promote good mental

wellbeing.’12 This has been taken forward in the current ‘Mental Health Strategy for

Scotland: 2012-2015’13, which brings together mental health improvement and mental health

services for the first time and focuses on mental health improvement, prevention, care,

services, and recovery. This emphasis on prevention within policy has been reinforced in

Christie’s Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services.14

At a city level, mental health and well-being is a priority for key agencies. Glasgow City

Community Health Partnership highlights in their 2013-16 Development Plan: ‘work with our

partners to improve the overall mental health and wellbeing of the people of Glasgow, taking

forward ‘No Health without Mental Health’ recommendations’.15 There is also a clear

commitment to addressing inequalities in health and key targets include reviewing refugee

and asylum services, accessing information when homeless, access and quality of

interpretation services. There is recognition that not everyone engages effectively with

services and information on service provision does not always reach those in most need,

such as asylum seekers and refugees. A review of health provision for asylum seekers in

2012 led to the establishment of a dedicated bridging service for asylum seekers which

includes a mental health check.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde are a partner in the ‘Strategy for Preventing and Alleviating

Homelessness in Glasgow 2009-2012’16 and have invested in a post to support Community

Health Partnerships in engaging with registered social landlords to prevent homelessness

and realise the potential for housing to contribute to better health and wellbeing.

Within Education Services, mental health and well-being is highlighted in the ‘Curriculum for

Excellence: Principles for Health and Well-being’.17 Glasgow Kelvin College highlights well-

being in terms of ‘developing people towards opportunity - helping them access and

progress to a wider range of life enhancing opportunities and employment that best suit their

needs though experience, qualifications and work.’18 Similarly Glasgow Life has as a

strategic objective: ‘to enhance the health and wellbeing of people who live, work and visit

the City’.19

12

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/05/06154655/2 13

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/08/9714 14

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/27154527/0 15

http://library.nhsggc.org.uk/mediaAssets/CHP%20Glasgow/Final%20CHP%20Development%20Plan%20-%2028032013.pdf 16

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=5528&p=0 17

www.curriculumforexcellencescotland.gov.uk 18

https://www.jwheatley.ac.uk/about/ 19

http://www.glasgowlife.org.uk/about-us/Pages/Glasgow-Life-Strategic-Objectives.aspx

15

Whilst there is this emphasis on mental health and well-being, there are still significant

inequalities in access to services, with asylum seekers and refugees as a hard-to-reach

group. Even those who are part of pre-existing groups, report isolation and demonstrate

lack of awareness of services, often for various personal, social and political reasons

(Mosaics of Meaning final report20). Several studies conducted in Scotland have suggested

that single men are particularly isolated but also underrepresented in research on refugees

(Mulvey, 2013; Quinn, 2013; Ager & Strang, 2008); yet single men without family now make

up around two thirds of asylum seekers in Scotland.

It is clear that multiple individual and structural and contextual factors undermine mental

health and well-being for asylum seekers and refugees. This study brings together two

strands of work in order to explore the resilience and resources available to isolated

refugees in Glasgow by mapping their access to social connections and exploring their

understandings of mental health and wellbeing:

The Sanctuary Programme, ‘Positive Mental Attitudes’ team, NHS Greater

Glasgow and Clyde.

‘Indicators of Integration’ research programme, Institute for International Health

and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh.21

1.4. Objectives of study

This study set out to explore the patterns of social connection amongst refugees and asylum

seekers in north and east Glasgow, and relate these patterns to their experiences of mental

health and well-being and health seeking behaviour.

1.4.1. Who should we work with?

Our concern was to reach those who have been underrepresented in previous studies, and

may be particularly disconnected. For this reason we decided to focus this study on single

men from Afghanistan or Iran living in north and east Glasgow and of refugee origin. The

majority of studies of refugees access participants through established refugee and other

community groups (Ager & Strang, 2008; Mulvey, 2013; Quinn, 2013). As our interest was in

exploring connectedness itself we needed to find a way of reaching people that was not

already biased towards the connected. Instead we would seek to find them in collaboration

with housing providers using tenant records.

20

http://www.mosaicsofmeaning.info/sites/default/files/mosaics_full_research_report_0.pdf 21

http://www.qmu.ac.uk/iihd/default.htm

16

1.4.2. What do we need to find out?

We set out to find out about the types of social connections of which this population are

aware, using the categories of ‘Bonds’, ‘Bridges’ and ‘Links’ (Ager & Strang, 2008). It was

also important to explore the extent to which they did actually make connections with these

people and organisations. Building on these notions of social capital, we measured

‘reciprocity’ – the opportunity to give as well as receive support – and ‘trust’. Each of these

is not only important for emotional well-being, but also for the maintenance of positive

relationships (Putnam, 2000).

Finally, our concern was to explore the relationships between social connection and

experiences of mental health and well-being amongst this group. We designed the approach

to achieve the following objectives:

1) To provide participants with a positive experience and extend their awareness of

informal and formal support available to them.

2) To explore

What are the social connections (people and organisations) that Afghan and

Iranian single male refugees and asylum seekers identify as resources in

achieving/maintaining good mental health and well-being whilst living in

Glasgow?

How much do they themselves connect with these sources of help and

support?

How much do they themselves give help and support?

How much do they trust in the individuals and/or organisations that they

identify as potential supports?

How do Afghan and Iranian single male refugees and asylum seekers

understand mental health and well-being, and health seeking behaviour

(including access to services)?

17

2. Setting up the study

2.1. Support, advice and collaboration

The study was funded by the ‘Positive Mental Attitudes’ team of NHS Greater Glasgow and

Clyde to contribute towards the goal of improving mental health and well-being for refugees

and asylum seekers in the area. Our aspiration was to learn more about the social

connections of our participants in order to inform service provision and community planning,

as well as to provide direct support to them through the research design.

A Steering Group of refugee representatives and service providers was convened to guide

the design and implementation and application of the study comprising:

Janice (Greig) Mitchell, Health, Homelessness & Housing Lead, Glasgow City CHP

Marie Jones & Jim Battersby, Service Improvement, Glasgow Housing Association,

North East Area

Joe Brady & Elodie Mignard, Scottish Refugee Council, Integration team

Irene Quinn & Wendy Gormley, John Wheatley College

Donald Lawrie, North Glasgow Integration Network

Jackie Sunderland, Glasgow Life

Waheed Totakhyl & Abdullah Spinger, Scottish Afghan Society

Neil Quinn & Ruth Donnelly, Positive Mental Attitudes Team, GGC Health Board

Alison Strang, Institute for International Health and Development, Queen Margaret

University, Edinburgh.

Glasgow Housing Association (GHA), is the largest social housing provider in the area and is

committed to, ‘… helping Glasgow residents lead better, happier and healthier lives.’22 This

study has been undertaken in collaboration with their north and east sector teams as part of

their programme to support tenants.

After data collection had been completed, a stakeholder workshop was convened to share

the results of the study and explore implications for policy and practice. We are very grateful

for this input and the views of stakeholders are reflected in this report. (List of contributors in

Appendix 5).

22

http://www.gha.org.uk/

18

2.2. Ethical considerations

The study was designed to use participatory research methods that would not only enable us

to collect information, but would also provide information and support directly to participants.

Participants shared informal information about locally appropriate resources and coping

strategies. Information about formal services was distributed through presentations and

distribution of leaflets. We ensured that participants understood that their participation was

voluntary, they could leave at any time, were not obliged to talk about anything that they did

not want to, and that no information emerging from the research would be identifiable as

relating to a particular person. In planning the study we recognised that some participants

would be likely to be in immediate need of support. We therefore ensured that a qualified

mental health professional was present throughout each research event to provide direct

support and appropriate signposting.

We took advice from refugee community groups as well as our Steering Group to ensure

research design was sensitive and appropriate. The research design was then approved by

Queen Margaret University Research Ethics Committee23. Before running the research

events, we piloted the research methodology with members of the Scottish Afghan Society.

2.3. Recruiting participants

One of the biggest challenges was to make contact with people who are not already

participating in various community groups. We are very grateful to the North East Area

Service Improvement team of Glasgow Housing Association (GHA) without whom we could

not have done this study. The GHA staff used tenant records to identify households

indicating either Afghanistan or Iran as their country of origin. Two locations were identified

as housing the highest numbers of Afghan and Iranian residents: the Townhead area near

the city centre and the Pinkston Drive area in Sighthill to the north. The GHA team delivered

an information sheet (Appendix 2) to all the addresses identified in these two areas as well

as posting up information in the lobby areas of flats. Five to seven days later members of the

research team, accompanied by a member of GHA staff and an interpreter visited each

address with further information sheets translated into a selection of languages (Farsi, Dari,

Pashto, and Kurdish). Visits were repeated until we had spoken to someone at the address

or exhausted the possibilities of finding them (up to three times). At each address any men

over the age of eighteen years who were in the UK as asylum seekers or refugees from

23

Approval granted February 2013.

19

either Iran or Afghanistan (and without a wife or children in the UK) were invited to join the

study.

After discussing the study (with the help of an interpreter where necessary) participants were

asked to sign a consent form in their own language and invited to attend a workshop the

next week. We left written information about the study and the workshop with each

participant in their preferred language. In this way around 10 to 15 participants were

recruited to two different workshops, one in each location, Townhead and Sighthill. In the

event, of those initially agreeing to participate, 16 attended the two workshops in February

2013 (7 Sighthill, 9 Townhead).

We recognised at this point that it would not be possible to recruit more people through the

tenant lists within the scope of this project. Therefore, we used data from this first phase of

the study to identify contexts where Afghan and Iranian men gathered. We decided to

convene two more workshops with men who were connected to existing groups. This would

allow us to see if there were any differences in their patterns of connectedness or attitudes

to mental health and well-being with those not recruited through groups. We approached the

leadership of two groups that had been mentioned by participants: one Afghan group and

one Iranian group and then met with members to explain the study (using interpreters) and

invite people to participate. The study workshops were held in August 2013, between one

and two weeks after meeting group representatives, at venues suggested by each of the

groups. A total of 14 men participated (Iranian group: 6; Afghan group: 8).

2.4. Methods of investigation

The workshops followed an approach developed by QMU which employs participatory

activities to explore the social capital of the participant group24. The methodology uses

sample ‘real life’ problems to explore connections associated with ‘bonding’, ‘bridging’ and

‘linking’ capital. The social connections generated in this way are relevant for participants as

potential resources in their own context, and can act as a proxy indicator for their range of

connections. The method does not purport to achieve a comprehensive mapping of all the

connections of the group (or even one individual within it) as this would be extremely

burdensome for participants. A second stage of the methodology uses these connections to

develop ‘connectedness’ scores for individual participants and also for the social resources

that the group has identified.

24

QMU developed the participatory methodology in the contrasting refugee contexts of Darfur, Sudan and with asylum seekers

in north Glasgow http://qmu.adobeconnect.com/p8upcnutrae/

20

The workshops were held in community venues familiar and local to the respective

participants. Buffet lunch was provided, but no other incentives or expenses payments. A

team of interpreters attended each session covering the languages of anticipated attendees

at a ratio of 2:1. At each event interpreters were briefed in advance about the purpose and

processes of the research (Appendix 3). Through discussion we agreed together with

interpreters which words or phrases to use to express key concepts. Interpreters were

requested to ensure that they translated all participant contributions verbatim, allowing the

researcher to answer/ask questions for clarity.

2.4.1. The workshop programme

Registration: Participants’ understanding of the information sheet was confirmed and they

were invited to sign a consent form if they had not already done so. The research team

recorded biographical data on age; length of time in Glasgow and UK; numbers of people

living in the same residence as participant and numbers of people they had spoken to on

sample days during the previous week (Appendix 4).

Welcome, introduction & demonstration of the first exercise: During the welcome we

reminded participants that their participation was voluntary, they could leave at any time,

were not obliged to talk about anything that they did not want to, and that no information

emerging from the research would be identifiable as relating to a particular person. The

researchers then demonstrated the first activity based on the example of discussing the

people and organisations that were asked for help in order to set up the workshop.

Figure 1: Workshop Components

Participatory activity in small groups to elicit awareness of

local social connections and resources.

Information sharing sessions by service providers.

Individual card sorting tasks to explore individual

connectedness, opportunities to give help and levels of trust.

Focus group discussions on understandings of mental health

and well-being.

21

Participatory exercise: Participants were divided into small groups of up to four people

(speaking the same language and/or English). One researcher (with an interpreter)

facilitated each group, taking them through a series of three problems and asking them to

think of all the people or organisations they might talk to, or ask for help about such a

problem. Participants were then asked who each of these people (or organisations) might

pass them on to if the problem could not be resolved. All the possible alternatives were

explored (including people they might like to access, but are not available to them in their

current lives). The three problems were chosen as familiar to the current lives and context of

participants and to explore participants’ access to emotional support, practical help and

access to rights.

As discussions progressed, a researcher plotted responses on a large sheet of paper (in the

middle of the table in front of participants) showing each type of person or organisation

mentioned in a circle with a line linking them to the problems for which they were accessed.

Where participants mentioned connections that were no longer available to them (e.g. ‘Back

home I would have talked to my father about that, but he has been killed, so now I can’t’) we

included the person/organisation, but connected them with a dotted line. This process

generally took about 30 – 40 minutes.

Figure 2: Problem scenarios used to elicit social connections

‘Who would you speak to about the problem or ask for help if

your computer/phone was broken?’ (Practical help)

‘Who would you speak to about the problem or ask for help if you

felt lonely? (Emotional support)

‘Who would you speak to about the problem or ask for help if you

had problems with your housing?

(Practical help & Access to rights)

22

Figure 3: Sample ‘map’ of participants’ awareness of resources

Refreshment break & Service Provider presentations: Selected services providers (GHA,

‘Lifelink’, John Wheatley College, ‘Platform’ and the Scottish Afghan Society) talked to the

group about their services whilst participants were enjoying the buffet lunch. Throughout the

whole event a mental health support professional from ‘Lifelink’ (a Glasgow based

organisation providing emotional support and counselling) sat with the participants building

rapport.

At the same time the research team collated the lists of social connections (people and

organisations) generated by the first task - clarifying meaning, and where necessary

combining items referring to the same person/organisation and reducing by excluding items

mentioned by only one person.25 Each item on the list was given a number and written on

25

We would also ensure that the list is no longer than 25 cards by excluding items mentioned by only one person, however this

was not necessary as none of the groups in this study generated more than 25 social connection items.

23

small card. Several identical sets of cards were produced for each workshop so that several

researchers could work with a participant at the same time.

Card sorting tasks: As soon as the sets of cards were ready, participants were invited

individually (with the support of an interpreter as necessary) to sit apart from the group (to

preserve confidentiality) and sort cards according to three questions:

Responses were recorded each time on a separate recording sheet for each participant.

Focus Group Discussions: After participants had completed the card sorting tasks they

were invited to join a discussion group. One group were selected as more isolated and the

other as more connected (allocated according to how connected they appeared to be from

their reports of how many people they speak to each day). Both groups were led through a

discussion on the following questions:

Figure 4: Questions for the card sorting tasks

Have you spoken to or asked this person/organisation for

help in the last six months?

(Yes/No)

How much do you trust this person/organisation to do their

best to help you – even if they don’t succeed?

(A lot/a little/not at all – illustrated by pictures showing a glass

full/half full/empty)

In the last six months, has this person/organisation asked

you to help them, or talked to you about their problems?

(Yes/No)

24

Discussions were recorded and transcribed and where possible an observer/researcher sat

in on the session taking notes.

We ensured that all participants had a chance to talk with the ‘Lifelink’ representative before

they left and thanked them for their contributions. At most workshops members of the team

also gave particular participants further information and/or facilitated referrals to appropriate

resources and services.

2.4.2. Data Analysis

The data from the participatory exercise was used to compile a collective ‘map’ of social

connections for each of the four workshops. In each of these diagrams the particular

connections mentioned by participants were plotted according to geographic proximity.

Individual responses from the card sorting tasks were then used to collate levels of

connection, help giving (reciprocity) and trust for each of the connections. This information

was then added to the ‘map’ for each group.

A thematic analysis of the focus group discussion transcripts was undertaken to identify and

collate participants’ views on the topics discussed as well as others spontaneously

emerging.

Figure 5: Focus group discussion guide questions

What is the first word or phrase you think of when you hear the words

‘good mental health’?

How do you think people would react if they knew someone was

distressed, anxious or sad?

If you or someone you knew was distressed, anxious or sad, who, if

anyone, would they go to for help? (Prompt: for example family,

friends or formal support through a doctor or a counsellor + what sort

of help might they get from each of these people?)

What could someone who was distressed, anxious or sad do to help

themselves and make their life better?

25

3. What we learnt

3.1. Observations from the research process

3.1.1. Accessing ‘difficult-to-reach’ participants

Previous studies had suggested that our target population, single refugee men from

Afghanistan and Iran, was very difficult to engage in research. This was confirmed by our

experiences during this study which highlighted difficulties with:

Finding where refugees or asylum seekers from these countries lived (housing

records were often not completed in detail, and many tenants had moved on due to

demolitions currently underway in Glasgow. GHA had themselves recently

undergone a major restructuring, and as a result we could not work with Housing

Officers who would have known the tenants personally).

Making direct contact through home addresses (people were not at home or didn’t

answer their door even though researchers called at different times and days).

Converting agreement to participate into actual attendance (roughly half of the men

who agreed to participate did not in fact attend the workshop to which they had been

invited).

We were aware that isolated refugees and asylum seekers might well be reluctant to trust us

as unknown researchers. It did seem that the fact that we were introduced by members of

the GHA team lent legitimacy to our request. However, it is not surprising that for some, this

was not enough to persuade them to participate in the research. Community organisations

advised us, quite rightly, that it would take time to build up trust. However, for the purposes

of this research it was important not to change the dynamics of social connections by

building up specific relationships around a research group and in effect creating a supportive

community.

These difficulties have implications not just for the research process, but also for the general

isolation of this population. A lack of engagement in research leads to an under-

representation of the needs and concerns of this group in data collection and evidence.

Additionally isolation and lack of engagement with anyone outside the home will inevitably

reduce awareness and access to both informal support and formal support services.

26

Age range of Participants

Under 20yrs

20+ - 25 yrs

25+ - 30yrs

30+ - 40 yrs

40+

3.1.2. Description of participants

We held four research workshops during 2013. Two workshops comprised Afghans or

Iranians living in north east Glasgow who had been accessed through the support of GHA

and door to door visits to tenants (as described above). These events were held in familiar

community venues in Sighthill and Townhead respectively and participants were invited to

attend whichever was most convenient. The geographic location and language profile of

participants for each was similar and the data has been combined.

Participants for the third workshop were recruited through an Iranian group. The event took

place in the normal meeting room of the group and of the twenty two volunteers signing up to

participate, six attended and participated. Participants for the fourth workshop were

recruited through an Afghan community group. By the choice of group members, this

workshop was held in the Scottish Refugee Council meeting room and there were eight

participants.

Table 1: First language of participants

Table 2: Age range of participants

Their ages range between 18 and over 40 years of age

The majority had been in Glasgow for over one year

(17 out of 30), and of those, ten had been in Glasgow

for over three years Three had lived in the city for less

than three months. The largest group lived on their

own (n=9), seven lived with one other person, six with

Of the resulting total 30 participants in the

whole study, roughly half were recruited

independently of existing groups (16) and

half through existing groups (14). The

majority spoke Farsi as their first language

(n=23) with a smaller group speaking Dari

(n=5) and the remaining two speaking

Pashto and Kurdish respectively.

27

two to five people (two of whom described themselves as ‘sofa- surfing’) and two lived in a

hostel for the homeless.26

3.1.3. Biographical factors in relation to social connection

The number of participants in this study was small and so we have used the quantitative

data simply to provide an understanding of the profile of the groups that participated in the

study.

In order to gain an alternative measure of connectedness, we asked participants roughly

how many people they remembered speaking to on three sample days of the previous week.

Responses were used to calculate a nominal: ‘average number of people spoken to per day’.

Just over half had spoken to an average of more than ten people per day on selected days

in the past week (16 out of 23). Just under a third had spoken to three or less people per day

(9 out of 23). This data was amalgamated for the two workshops where participants were

accessed through the housing association (and were potentially very isolated) and then

compared with the two workshops set up through existing community groups (who are at

least a little connected).

Table 3: People spoken to each day x Connected/Isolated

26

Data on numbers living together was not available for the remaining participants.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 5 6 10 11 20 20+

Connected'

Isolated'

28

This measure, ‘Average number of people spoken to each day’ is quick and easy to gather

and as such is a popular measure of social isolation or connectedness in survey data. This

table shows that in this cohort the distribution of daily contact scores from each group was

very similar, suggesting that there was not a major difference between these two groups in

terms of daily exposure to other people.

We also found that in this data, there was no clear relationship between daily exposure to

other people and ‘connectedness’ according to our measure (derived from the participatory

and card sorting exercises).

Table 4: ‘Connectedness’ measure x People spoken to each day

This suggests that it cannot be assumed that the numbers of daily opportunities to speak to

people accurately reflects access to help and support. So for example those living in a

hostel amongst twenty other homeless people may speak to a large number of people each

day, but at the same time be very isolated from help at all levels, emotional, practical and

access to rights. It was interesting that this was particularly true of the Afghan group who

showed high levels of trust in various care givers – suggesting that they were reliant on them

for emotional as well as practical support. Participants were most consistently connected

with friends in Glasgow (50%+ participants had been in contact with friends in the last six

months). The Afghan group was the only group where more than 50% participants reported

having been in contact with family in Glasgow. Of the Iranian group, more than 50%

reported having been in touch with family overseas, but there was no mention at all of family

in Glasgow.

Average # people spoken to per day

29

We also found that length of time spent living in Glasgow was not strongly associated with

more connectedness (on either measure), nor with the opportunity to help others -

suggesting that time is not enough to enable people to become connected.

3.1.4. Observations on the research workshops

Of those who did attend the research events almost all quickly became very engaged with

the process, making lively contributions to the discussions. It was clear from discussions

that active information sharing was going on through the participatory exercises, the

stakeholder presentations and informal conversations. Some people already knew each

other in advance (we encouraged people to bring their friends) but most didn’t know anyone.

Whilst facilitators tried to create an affirming and safe environment to encourage

participation, no pressure was put on anyone to speak. In each workshop there was at least

one very quiet withdrawn individual. We ensured that these participants were able to have

one-to-one conversations with the support mental health professional (‘Lifelink’) – these

conversations often revealed acute personal needs which the team followed up by putting

the person in touch with the appropriate service providers. It was important to have this

extra professional support as the research team were not equipped to provide appropriate

mental health support and were fully utilised in facilitating the research activities.

3.2. Mapping Social Connections

The data from the participatory exercise tells us about the actual people and organisations

that this population of Afghan and Iranian refugees and asylum seekers perceive as a

resource for the particular problems used in the exercise. The three problems were chosen

as familiar experiences for this group. We deliberately focused on emotional well-being (by

asking about loneliness) and housing as these two issues were of particular interest to

partners.

However the problems were also deliberately constructed to represent the three key types of

relationships essential to well-being according to social capital theory, namely ‘bonds’

(important for emotional support), ‘bridges’ (important for exchange of practical help), and

‘links’ (important for access to rights). As a result, the range of social connections generated

by the exercise can be understood as providing a representation, or proxy indication of the

range of connections to which this population has access. This process was designed to be

30

much quicker and more manageable than attempting to map every single connection for

each individual.

To help to see the range of social connections available we have plotted them according to

geographic proximity. (In several of the workshops this was done with the help of

participants – to involve them in knowledge building as well as helping to ensure that our

understanding of where people and organisations are located is correct). For ease of

reading, each map also clusters social connections according to rough categories such as

statutory agencies, private sector, voluntary agencies and friends and family.

These diagrams present the data emerging from the collective participatory exercise.

We have then collated the individual data emerging from the card sorting tasks to

superimpose findings about the levels of connection, ‘trust’ and ‘reciprocity’ (opportunities for

giving help and support).

3.2.1. Awareness and Levels of Connection

Figure 6: Workshops 1 & 2 (combined data) Townhead & Sighthill

31

Friends & family: The data suggests that these participants lack natural bonding

relationships. Most do not live with family in Glasgow. Fewer than half of the participants

were in contact with family in Glasgow and fewer than half connected with family elsewhere.

Some reported that they had been placed in flats with one or two other asylum seekers who

they did not know beforehand. The majority reported that they currently have contact with

friends in Glasgow who are from their own country and also people from other countries

(these friends were likely to be other refugees as participants talked about meeting them in

language classes). Fewer than half of the participants were in contact with either friends or

family who were still in their home country who might be expected to provide ‘bonding’

relationships. This raises the question of how much new friendships in Glasgow are able to

provide emotional support. This will be addressed in the presentation of the focus group

discussion data. Responses showed that people from the same country of origin (or

language group) that have been in Glasgow longer offer a valued resource across the

spectrum of problem solving.

Local support services: In this group almost all of the rest of the connections mentioned

are statutory and voluntary agency service providers, either based in the neighbourhood or

Glasgow wide. However, the range is limited and does not include many of the agencies

that do in fact offer support to refugees and asylum seekers (e.g. Colleges, libraries, Citizens

Advice Bureau). It may indeed be that they are aware of other organisations, but it is

significant in itself that these organisations are not mentioned as a resource. Participants in

this group suggested that someone could go to their local doctor (GP) for help with

emotional support needs, and mentioned the possibility of gaining a referral to NHS mental

health professionals. However, there was no reference to any of voluntary sector mental

health support – even though one of the problems was directly related to emotional well-

being.

National agencies: In this map – representing the data collected from the two workshops

where participants were not accessed through groups – there was no mention at all of UK

national agencies that might deal with legal issues, asylum claims or access to housing or

financial support. If these people are not aware of the functioning of wider Scottish and UK

society, this will inhibit their independent access to rights.

General observations: The general picture from these groups is that they have limited and

patchy awareness of potential support networks. This is in stark contrast to the ‘map’ of

potential resources generated by the contributors to our final stakeholders workshop

attended by cross-sector service providers and policy makers from across Glasgow (Fig. 7).

32

Figure 7: Glasgow Stakeholders: Social Connection

33

If we then look at those social resources with which at least 50% of the refugee group had

been in touch over the previous six months, then the picture of access becomes even more

limited. There are only nine social connections with which over half of the group had been in

touch in the past six months. The picture is strongest on access to services, but very weak

on access to rights or at least the awareness of routes to access rights. Participants

reported that they were heavily reliant on the internet both to keep in touch with friends and

family, and to finding out about resources.

Figures 8 & 9: Workshops 3 & 4, Iranian & Afghan groups

34

Family & Friends: Again the data for both of these groups suggests a lack of close bonding

relationships. Participants reported living with other refugees or asylum seekers, a few lived

in hostels and two reported that they were ‘sofa surfing’ – staying for short periods with

friends. None lived with family. They reported high levels of connections with friends in

Glasgow.27 Again, people from their home country who are established in Glasgow are

mentioned as a resource – and in both of these groups have been accessed by more than

50% of participants in the past six months. Interestingly whilst ‘Scottish friends’ were

mentioned in all workshops, it was only these workshops run within pre-established groups

where more than 50% of participants reported having sought the help of Scottish friends

within the past six months. These two groups also talked less about friends and family from

home (even though there was very little difference in the range of lengths of time participants

had been in Glasgow across the different workshops).

Support services: Participants in these two workshops who were already engaged with a

community group seemed to be even less aware of support services than the

Townhead/Sighthill participants. This might be as a result of being dispersed across

27

Apart from ‘girlfriend’ which was mentioned by one member of the Afghan group and caused great embarrassed hilarity

thereafter – had the total number of connections mentioned been higher, this item would probably have been excluded as an

outlier.

35

Glasgow rather than in areas where there are dedicated support services for refugees. In

the Iranian group the only non-statutory organisations mentioned were the housing provider,

GHA, the Scottish Refugee Council and the church. Once again these groups did not

demonstrate awareness of most of the wider range of services in Glasgow. The members of

the Afghan group made no mention of mental health professionals at all. Neither did they

mention the mosque – even though, as we had already observed when meeting some of

them during Ramadan, they are practising Muslims. The only non-statutory support service

mentioned by this group is the housing provider. The Afghan group demonstrated relatively

high levels of contact with agencies that they do mention. Over half had asked for help from

case workers (hostel, guardians and social workers), their GP, and the Home Office in the

past six months.

UK agencies/access to rights: With the Iranian group there was again no mention of UK

national agencies. The Afghan group were the only ones to mention the Home Office.

3.2.2. Patterns of trust

Participants were asked to indicate whether they trusted each type of person or organisation

‘a lot’, ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’. Responses were then given a weighting (1-3), and total scores

for each potential social connection were calculated. As participants were also given the

option of not rating an item (because they did not know the organisation and so had no

opinion of it, or for example: they did not have a ‘girlfriend’) a total ‘trust’ score was

calculated for each item as a percentage of responses to that item. By this process all the

data from the four workshops could be combined and the organisations could be ranked

according to levels of trust:

Table 5: Connections ranked by ‘Trust’

Connections Average trust score x 3 groups

Family in home country 97

Relatives 95

Family in Glasgow 93

GP 90.5

Police 89

Interpreter 89

Guardian 89

People you live with 86

Church 86

Social Services 83.5

Community Association 83

Red Cross 83

Repair shop (own language) 83

36

Other Iranian Glasgow–based friends 82.6

Friends Abroad 81

Lawyer 80.5

Home Office 79

Scottish friends 78.6

Concierge 78.5

Hostel Caseworker 78

Scottish Refugee Council 77

Mental Health Professional 77

Repair shop (English speaking) 75

Insurance company 75

Iranian/Afghan friends established in Glasgow 74

Girlfriend 72

Glasgow Housing Association 71

Refugee Support Team (GCC) 70

Internet 69

Friends - YMCA 67

Repair team (Housing) 67

Hamish Allen Centre (Homeless Hostel) 65

ESOL Classmates + Friends other countries 62.5

Shops 60

Friends - Glasgow 60

Advice Services 58

Political Colleagues (home country) 56

YMCA 39

Estate Agent 33

We can see from this table that ‘family’ is consistently ranked highest in ‘trust’. The next

highest ranking connection is the local doctor (GP), closely followed by the Police,

interpreters and Guardians. Familiar organisations and services and also different

categories of friends showed more variability in scores and this is reflected in their middle

ranking positions. People tended to trust those from their own country most.

We can see that there was a tendency to report fairly high levels of ‘trust’ – with all but two of

the average ‘trust’ scores for each connection above 56%. (Therefore in order to achieve

meaningful differentiation for the data plotted on the map a cut-off point of 80% was used for

the ‘trust’ score.) This seems high, especially for a group of people whom it might be

expected would have learnt not to trust other people and organisations as a result of their

pre-flight and journey experiences. As seen above, after ‘family’ the highest level of trust

(which reflects consistently high rankings across participants) was associated with GPs,

closely followed by Police. This may or may not show genuine confidence in the UK state

sector. It may reflect that participants feel the need to show respect for authority in the

research context (which is often perceived as ‘official’). The Afghan community group also

indicated higher levels of trust in people who could be said to have a ‘carer’ (or case worker)

relationship with them such as their GP, Guardian, Hostel staff, or the housing Concierge.

37

Figures 10, 11 & 12: Patterns of ‘Trust’

38

Responses to the cards relating to family and friends showed much greater variation, with

participants often very confident and more extreme in their judgements from ‘a lot’ to ‘not at

all’.

Whilst participants’ reactions and the resulting data suggest that this task was meaningful to

participants, it did not allow for any exploration of the basis for these judgements. Often

participants wanted to talk more about this which suggests that in future the task could be

used to prompt discussion and explore issues of trust further.

3.2.3. Opportunities for reciprocity

The final maps add information on the extent to which participants reported that they had

been asked for help by others, or talked to others about their own problems. The card

sorting task simply asked for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer so does not purport to reflect degrees in

the extent to which the participant has given support to different areas of their social

connections.

39

Figures 13, 14 & 15: Opportunities for reciprocity

40

It is very striking in both the Sighthill/Townhead and Afghan group data how little opportunity

these participants have had for giving help. In both data sets the participants demonstrate

that they only have one type of relationship where at least half of participants have been able

to support or give help. The Sighthill/Townhead participants reported giving help to Glasgow

based friends who are from the same county of origin. The Afghan group reported that they

were only able to reciprocate by helping those with whom they were living. In contrast, the

Iranian group report that they have had opportunities to help friends, family overseas and

others in the group. They are also the only group who have higher levels of contact – and

opportunities for reciprocal relationships with Scottish friends.

Putnam has argued powerfully that the exercise of reciprocal help-giving and receiving is

fundamental to the development and maintenance of social capital and in turn a community

where resources are shared and used to the full (Putnam, 2000). This data suggests that

most participants are largely excluded from the opportunity to share. Furthermore, others

have argued that altruism in itself is beneficial to mental health and well-being (Mental

Health Foundation, 2012). Most participants in this study appear to have very limited

opportunity to experience the benefits of giving to others – this is likely to be undermining to

their mental health and well-being (Green, 2006; Quinn, 2013).

41

3.2.4. Observations on access to services

Participants mentioned very few resources for dealing with mental health issues, despite the

fact that we specifically explored mental health issues by choosing the example of ‘feeling

sad and lonely’. It is clear that this group are:

Generally lacking in access to family support

Often living alone or with people they don’t know

Aware of the potential help offered by a GP

Not aware of counselling services or specialist psychiatric care

However, they did not even mention – let alone report that they had been in contact with –

many of the support agencies and other resources that would be available (as illustrated by

the ‘map’ produced by stakeholders, Figure 7). Similarly there was very little evidence of

awareness of processes by which they might ensure services are delivered to an appropriate

standard or access their rights (such as Members of Parliament, Members of the Scottish

Parliament, Councillors, Courts, Ombudsman, Citizens Advice Bureau).

It could be argued that whilst participants from the Iranian group have access to a good

network of personal connections, they are much weaker in their access to relevant services.

On the other hand, members of the Afghan group appear to be more aware of services but

more personally isolated.

This study was not set up to explore the role of the internet in making social connections.

However, participants spontaneously talked about the various ways in which they used the

internet both to keep in touch with family and friends, and also to find out information. It

appears that these isolated refugees and asylum seekers are very dependent on the internet

for access to both personal relationships and services. This suggests that improving access

to and proficiency with information technology might support this group. At the same time,

as will be discussed below, participants themselves suggested that spending too much time

on the computer could act as an inhibitor to engaging with the challenges of their lives and to

connecting with the people of Glasgow.

42

3.3. Focus Group Discussions

The focus group discussions were designed to build on the work of the Sanctuary project by

exploring the same issues with this isolated group of refugees hitherto under-represented.

So the following discussion questions were used:

What is the first word or phrase you think of when you hear the words ‘good mental

health’? (Prompt: or ‘well-being’?)

How do you think people would react if they knew someone was distressed, anxious

or sad?

If you or someone you knew was distressed, anxious or sad, who, if anyone, would

they go to for help? (Prompt: for example family, friends or formal support through a

doctor or a counsellor + what sort of help might they get from each of these people?)

What could someone who was distressed, anxious or sad do to help themselves and

make their life better?

Participants were divided into smaller groups on the basis of their responses to the

questions about numbers of people they had spoken to each day (because the information

on ‘connectedness’ according to our participatory methodology was not available until

analysed after the workshop). However, as our subsequent analysis suggests that this is not

a robust indicator of connectedness, we have not separated out isolated/connected in the

analysis of the focus group discussion data.

3.3.1. Understandings of the term ‘good mental health’

Feelings& symptoms

Good mental health and well-being was seen by many participants as associated with a

feeling of ‘happiness’. Most elaborated this in terms of circumstances. One person

suggested that good mental health is directly dependent on circumstances, ‘Good mental

health is the absence of problems’ (gp5). However most others suggested that it depends

on the way you feel about your circumstances. For example: ‘… you know what you are

doing, when you think of your life situation you are happy again’ (gp3); ‘a stress-free life’

(gp1). Another participant linked good mental health with optimism and hopefulness about

the future (gp3). Participants suggested that there are two key circumstantial factors that

underpin good mental health. One is the absence of uncertainty (gps 3&5) and the other a

‘sense of safety’ (gp2).

43

Interestingly, although we did not ask about poor mental health, participants were very quick

to move on to talking about poor mental health and seemed to find it easier to talk about this.

They had a variety of constructs to use to describe the feelings associated with poor mental

health: ‘depressed’; ‘vulnerable’; ‘lonely’; ‘stressed’. Poor mental health was sometimes

physically located inside the body: ‘a problem in the head’ (gp6), or ‘…something wrong

inside me’ (gp7). Participants also talked about symptoms, mentioning that poor mental

health is associated with sleep problems and other health problems.

Behavioural impacts

The discussions showed very clearly that participants generally believe that mental health,

be it good or poor has a significant impact on an individual’s approach to life and to their

behaviour.

On the positive side, for some, good mental health was associated with, and perhaps even

defined by, the ability to solve life’s problems:

‘Basically the problems, issues…always it goes through their life. But with me, the

good mental health is a problem I can sort out. If I have a problem I can’t sort out,

that is bad mental health’

‘In my opinion, almost everybody got a problem, but main issue is how we can

manage to sort out problems – that’s very important.’ (gp5)

People with good mental health are seen as able to work, participate in opportunities such

as education and live healthily. They were also seen as being able to form good

relationships with people and with God. People with good mental health can contribute to

society:

‘He can serve himself well, he can help the community.’ (gp6)

In direct contrast, participants observed that people with poor mental health do not have

much contact with others. Sometimes they choose to be alone (gp5). However it was also

suggested that this isolation is sometimes because people with poor mental health often

behave in ways unacceptable to others. Unacceptable behaviour included ‘saying

unacceptable things’ (gp6), and also ‘doing stuff you are not supposed to be doing for

example, smoking or going out, misbehaving’ (gp3). This data points to the view that people

become marginalised and isolated because their behaviour falls outside accepted social

norms.

44

Causes

Much of the discussion about what was understood by good mental health gave insights into

how participants viewed the underlying causes of mental health problems. The dominant

themes were:

Insecurity of circumstances

Social isolation

‘Culture shock’

Poverty

Inactivity

A strong consensus emerged that insecurity of circumstances is the obvious cause of mental

health problems amongst asylum seekers and refugees. Participants frequently mentioned

uncertainty about immigration status and the asylum process and some mentioned insecurity

of housing tenure. Several also talked about the impact of uncertainty about the well-being

of loved ones in their home country and of the general circumstances in their home country.

One person mentioned how upsetting it is when you are worrying about your family back

home, but people in the UK don’t accept the truth of what you are saying. (gp5)

The second dominant theme, social isolation, was again often introduced as an obvious

cause of poor mental health:

‘A person who is alone, they don’t have contact… You become depressed straight

away’ (gp4)

Social isolation was mentioned as a cause of poor mental health in all the discussion groups.

It was seen as resulting from homesickness and being away from family and friends:

‘For the last three years I am here for every occasion, even New Year or whatever,

nobody calls me!’

Participants felt isolated by their lack of familiarity with the local language and culture. One

in particular talked movingly about the disempowering and deskilling effect of this total

unfamiliarity:

‘On arriving in UK I was in total shock. I didn’t know what to do; didn’t know the

language and didn’t know the culture. I felt like a new born baby who can’t do

anything.’ (gp4)

45

Others pointed out that poverty often directly prevents refugees or asylum seekers from

attending community events, the Mosque and so on, thus impeding their ability to make new

social connections. As we saw earlier, participants also recognised that social isolation can

sometime result from poor mental health, thereby creating a vicious cycle.

The final recurring theme was that of being under-occupied. Several participants pointed out

that poor mental health is both provoked and exacerbated by not having enough things to

do:

‘I think most of the worries occur when you’ve got nothing to do, you know when you

don’t have, you know (…) from boredom, you don’t have nothing to do so you start

worrying about things.” (gp1)

People felt that the circumstances of the asylum seeker who has a roof over their heads, but

no right to work and not enough money to go out and join in groups and activities leads to

the development of mental health problems. A number of different participants talked about

the experience of having nothing to look at but the ‘four walls’ of their flat, and nothing to do

but think about their problems.

3.3.2. How do other people react?

The Sanctuary project had revealed high levels of stigma associated with poor mental health

by refugees and asylum seekers. This study therefore deliberately set out to explore

attitudes to those experiencing mental health problems by asking: How do you think people

would react if they know someone was distressed, anxious or sad?

The responses of participants in every discussion group in this study suggested that they

themselves would be sympathetic and expect to help others with poor mental health. Some

expressed solidarity in very strong terms, for example:

‘If you don’t sympathise with others how can you be called a human?’ (gp2)

There was general agreement that in their own country and culture it would be the

responsibility of the family to support those who were ‘distressed, anxious or sad’28.

However, the particular circumstances of being an asylum seeker or refugee, away from

close family, meant that they formed much closer friendships (usually with others from their

own country). It is through these friendships that they give and receive emotional support in

Glasgow.

28

This is confirmed by other studies on Afghan and Iranian culture – for example in Cardozo, B., O. Bilukha, et al. (2004).

46

Participants also admitted that in the community at large, people might avoid someone with

a mental health problem. So it might be possible that they were simply reluctant to attribute

to themselves attitudes which they saw as negative. However, this interpretation was not

borne out by other parts of the discussion data. It was apparent from the very concrete and

lively way that participants discussed the topic that they were talking from experience of

supporting one another rather than in the abstract. (The ways in which this group provided

support will be discussed in the next section.)

Finally, in several discussions participants argued that there were certain circumstances

when neither they themselves nor other members of the community would attempt to get

involved in helping someone with mental health problems. These circumstances were very

specific: if someone had committed a serious crime, were alcohol or drug addicts, or if you

were struggling with the same problem yourself. The argument for not getting involved in the

case of alcohol and drug addiction was that it is very difficult for family and friends to actually

help, and a professional is needed with these problems. The reason for avoiding someone

with problems similar to yourself was that you might not be strong enough to support them

and might both make each other worse.

3.3.3. Sources of help

The discussions then probed sources of help known to participants, and how these sources

were perceived.

As was established in the last section, there was clear agreement that participants

considered that family would normally be the first source of help to turn to for people who

have poor mental health. However, it was also universally accepted that family were not

available to refugees and asylum seekers like themselves and from their own background

who were now in Glasgow. Discussions explored access to both formal services and to the

informal support of friends. These participants demonstrated a limited awareness of formal

support services and chose to focus on the strategies that friends use to support one

another.

Formal Support services

Most groups mentioned that people who were ‘distressed, anxious or sad’ could go to their

local doctor (GP) for help. They understood that the GP can then refer patients to specialist

47

treatment including for mental health. Health services were seen as good, but slow to

access. Two different participants quoted examples of long waits for appointments and/or

treatment. One participant related an alarming story:

‘On one of the cases someone was approaching the hospital to give him a

tablet and they didn’t. And eventually he was so annoyed… cos it took a

while to prescribe him… he went to the hospital and set himself on fire.”

(gp1)

Another participant suggested that some people may be reluctant to seek professional help

because they do not know the ‘terms’ to use. (gp5)

There was no spontaneous mention of any voluntary sector services available for mental

health support in Glasgow in any of the discussions. One participant claimed that there are

no organisations in Glasgow to help people suffering from distress or anxiety. Several

commented that they knew very little about existing services, such as the ‘Lifelink’

organisation represented at the research workshops. Participants asked for more

information and that it should be provided in their own languages.

When talking about how to find out about support services, some said that they would

normally seek information from family and friends. It was in the absence of family/friendship

networks that a number of participants would seek information on the internet. One

participant implied that accessing information through the internet was attractive because it

was private.

In addition to medical services, participants also suggested that people who are ‘distressed,

anxious or sad’ might seek help from other professionals who are able to help them with the

circumstantial difficulties seen as the cause of their mental health problems. In this context

they mentioned seeking help from a lawyer or the Citizens Advice Bureau, or potentially a

hostel case worker or Community Association.

Informal support

‘I’ve never been to an official organisation but I go to people I know or friends and

they’ve generally been able to help.’ (gp3)

The data consistently demonstrates that friends are seen as the primary source of help for

anyone who is ‘distressed, anxious or sad’. Participants generally argued that they would

not expect to share personal issues with all friends, but would have a small number of very

48

trusted friends, ‘Not every friend, but one or two friends who you are close to.’ (gp3). As a

result of this sharing, these friends would become like substitute family:

‘Because you haven’t got family in Glasgow, you share with friends, and become like

brothers.’ (gp2)

Other people did also talk about going to friends, neighbours and Scottish friends for help.

Participants were able to specify various ways in which friends are able to help:

‘Talk to them and find out what is wrong’ (gp7)

‘Cheer you up’ (gp3)

‘Reassure them’ (gp7)

‘Give advice’ (gps1,3&7)

‘Give information’(gp1)

‘Befriend them, take them out somewhere’ (gp7)

‘Take you out to have some fun’ (gp3)

‘Take them out for a walk’ (gp7)

This list illustrates a very constructive range of types of help including listening,

encouragement, advice-giving, befriending and distracting. There was a level of detail

across the different group discussions that indicated that participants were speaking from

personal experience. Several pointed out that it is important to listen:

‘They [friends] wouldn’t take you anywhere but they would speak to you, they wou ld

listen to you, you’d work off each other.’ (gp3)

This speaker appears to be sharing an insight from his own experience of being supported

by friends, and perhaps implies that the benefit can be reciprocal.

Another participant argued that friends need to be careful, and know someone well before

attempting to support them:

‘You have to know someone before you can help them otherwise you might make it

worse.’ (gp5)

Generally participants demonstrated recognition that mental health problems can be

complex to deal with and that – depending on the severity of the problem – professional

expertise may well be needed.

49

Interestingly, several participants focussed on helping with practical issues as well as the

mental health issues. For example:

‘First it is important to find out the root of the problem – if it is psychological then you

would try and make him hopeful. If it is economic, you help as much as you can.’

(gp4)

This was also evident in the suggestion that other professionals should be accessed who

can directly address the difficult circumstances. This approach is in line with the view

expressed earlier about the causes of mental health problems amongst asylum seekers and

refugees – that the problems are fundamentally circumstantial rather than psychological in

origin.

3.3.4. ‘Self Help’ Strategies

The focus groups were closed with a discussion of what someone who was ‘distressed,

anxious or sad’ could do to help themselves or make their lives better. Again, participants

displayed considerable insight on this topic and were able to suggest a range of appropriate

strategies. This data is in contrast to the findings of the earlier Sanctuary study where

participants demonstrated low levels of ‘emotional literacy’ and a lack of awareness of how

to protect and improve their own mental health and well-being (Quinn, 2013).

Several of the groups discussed the balance between seeking help and trying to sort out

problems yourself. Views ranged between arguing that it is better to handle problems

yourself if possible, and recommending that people should go for help as it is not possible to

sort out mental health problems alone. This spectrum was reflected in participants’

observations of others, ‘Some people don’t accept help’. (gp4). Generally there was a

recognition that,

‘Everybody has their own means of letting it out, their own approach. Everybody has

their own way of dealing with it.’(gp7)

There were two main themes in the strategies proposed for self-help:

Being active and busy

Getting connected with people and society

Participants suggested that pursuing an interest or activity is very helpful in taking your

attention away from your problems. They recognised that a whole variety of activities could

50

fulfill this aim. Many said that they themselves played computer games or watched

television. They recognised that this was a way to escape the problems:

‘I try not to think about my problem. I escape from the problem, I play with my

computer games you know.’ (gp5)

However it does not itself help to solve problems:

‘… although sometimes it [internet] makes you busy and stops you from going

forward and getting involved in other things. So it’s good and bad.’ (gp1)

Others recommended playing sport, going to the gym, going for a walk.

The second main theme was to advise that refugees or asylum seekers should, ‘Find some

way to connect with new society.’ (gp2) It was recognised that making connections with

people would generally make you happier, but to do that you would need to learn English

and learn to understand the new society that you are living in. One participant suggested

that:

‘People who go to a mosque or a church are generally happier because they are

involved in community.’ (gp3)

In the same group another person pointed out that:

‘It’s good to have lots of different friends so that they can give you different kinds of

help and support.’ (gp3)

Participants generally agreed that it is helpful to have friends that you can trust, and spend

time with.

51

Refugee Resilience

4. Key Findings and Implications

In this study we have accessed some of the most isolated refugees and asylum seekers in

Glasgow. This was only achieved through a very active partnership with the housing

provider with whom we were able to visit refugees in their homes and invite them to

participate. As anticipated, some of these single Afghan and Iranian men were very

reluctant to engage with any agency including ourselves. However due to the participatory

nature of the research design those who did attend the workshops were able to exchange

information, sign up for college courses and some received referrals to other agencies.

Participants have described the toxic mix of adverse circumstances that undermine their

mental health and well-being. At the same time we can also see much evidence of

individual and collective resilience. The data suggests that these refugees are active in

protecting and promoting their well-being as much as they can by keeping busy, trying to

make friends amongst other refugees and wider Scottish society and supporting one

another. However the emerging patterns of connections demonstrate the degree of isolation

experienced by these men. The ‘maps’ provide an indication of strategic connections upon

whom these refugees and asylum seekers must inevitably depend to access external

resources. The ‘maps’ give an insight into the most acute gaps and suggest ways that the

existing resources for promoting mental health and well-being for refugees in Scotland might

be further mobilised and developed.

Figure 16: Refugee Resilience

52

4.1. Key issues emerging

4.1.1. Adverse Circumstances

This group are facing (and have probably already endured) huge life challenges and

pressures. Yet participants see the main threat to their mental well-being as the adverse

circumstances in which they find themselves.29 Specifically they suggest that poor mental

health is caused by:

The chronic conditions of insecurity and instability under which they live. These

participants experience uncertainty during their asylum claim itself. Their housing

situation often continues to be unstable after receiving refugee status. Many are

very anxious about the security of loved ones either back in their country of origin or

whilst applying for asylum in UK.

The experience of major life transition leading to ‘culture shock’. These participants

described how disempowering it is to find yourself in a situation where everything is

unfamiliar and you can’t even speak the language to start to explain yourself, ask

questions or form relationships.

Poverty creates practical problems, inhibits strategies for problem resolution and

exacerbates isolation.

Implications: Our understanding of the causes of mental health problems has fundamental

implications for how to address these problems and also how to build resilience and attempt

prevention. This data suggests that access to advice and support in tackling the whole

range of practical challenges facing asylum seekers and refugees is likely, in itself, to

improve mental health and prevent problems from developing. Anticipating and preventing

crises is crucial for the protection of mental health and well-being. It is essential that policy

makers respond to the structural issues that result in poor mental health: the insecurity

created by the asylum process, the disruption of being required to move house multiple

times during and after the asylum seeking process, and the direct exclusionary effects of

poverty. There is also a need to develop appropriate therapeutic interventions for specific

mental health problems ensuring that these are addressed in the context of an individual’s

particular circumstances as an asylum seeker or refugee. However, simply providing

treatment without addressing the structural causes individualises a collective problem.

29

Many other studies have similarly observed that the circumstances of resettlement play at least as much, if not a more major

part than pre-flight trauma in refugee mental health and well-being (e.g. Silove et al., 2000; Watters, 2010

53

4.1.2. Inactivity

These refugees and asylum seekers identify inactivity as one of the key exacerbating factors

undermining coping and maintaining good mental health. They recognise that it is very hard

to maintain mental well-being when you have, ‘…nothing to think about but your worries’.

Even solitary, sedentary occupations such as watching TV or playing computer games were

seen as better than having nothing else to think about. However getting out of the flat,

taking exercise and meeting friends were seen as better. Some suggested that they could

not participate in social events at any distance because of the cost of transport.

Implications: It is clear from the ‘map’ of resources produced by our stakeholder group that

there is a large range of both formal and informal resources that isolated people could

engage with in Glasgow. The lack of engagement seems to stem from a mixture of lack of

knowledge, lack of money (for transport as well as entrance/membership fees) and lack of

confidence or trust. Service providers need to consider how to overcome these barriers and

ensure better access to services for refugees and asylum seekers. Once someone begins

to stay in their flat and away from others it becomes harder to get out and get involved.

Refugee community groups advising us suggested that asylum seekers and new refugees

actually have a lot of appointments to attend as part of their pursuit of their asylum claim.

Often these get in the way of engaging with other activities such as language or other

college courses, and they certainly don’t fulfil the function of distracting people from their

worries.

4.1.3. Lack of intimate relationships

This group showed an awareness that they need intimate relationships for emotional

support, yet most are without local access to family. Access to family through phone or

internet connection is very important to many, but cannot provide an adequate substitute for

sharing daily life. Some are clearly successful in developing close ‘bonding’ friendships

(become like ‘brothers’) through which they are able to give and receive emotional support.

Others are not successful even when they have been in Glasgow for several years. It

appears that time alone is not sufficient to enable all refugees to develop supportive intimate

relationships. For some isolated individuals, service providers themselves may

(unknowingly?) be the main source of emotional support, leading to a relationship of

dependency that is neither good for well-being nor sustainable.

Implications: Most asylum seekers and refugees would benefit if all formal and informal

services purposefully combined the provision of their service with prioritising the

‘development of positive and sustainable ‘bonding’ relationships’. The wider use of ‘peer

54

support’ mechanisms would be of particular value to those lacking in confidence to make

personal relationships.

4.1.4. Lack of opportunity for reciprocity

Opportunities for reciprocal relationships are very limited for most of this group. They are

occasionally able to help a few friends – mostly from the same background – and rarely help

Scottish friends. In all other relationships the help-giving is unidirectional. This lack of

balance leads to a sense of dependency and lack of opportunity for altruism which in itself is

undermining to self-esteem and mental well-being. This adversely affects the individual, but

also the way in which refugees and asylum seekers are perceived by society as a whole.

Implications: Many organisations do try to offer opportunities for volunteering, and clearly

some asylum seekers and refugees take full advantage and get involved. However, there

need to be specific strategies to draw in those who are lacking in confidence, or feel that

they don’t have any skills to offer or have poor English language skills. This data underlines

the potential strategic role of community groups (particularly those which involve established

as well as new communities) in providing informal opportunities for refugees and asylum

seekers to contribute. As we saw, trust cannot be built quickly and is likely to depend on

interpersonal contact. Once someone has become isolated, it is much harder to involve

them again.

4.1.5. Developing a range of social connections

This group of refugees recognised the importance of connecting with people, and some

pointed out that it is important to be connected with a range of different people, not only for

emotional support and company, but also for access to services. They expressed an

expectation that friends would be the natural source on information about services. This

suggests that these refugees are motivated to develop a range of social connections. Yet

the gaps that we have seen in their connections; including lack of family, friendships with

Scottish people, knowledge about services and wider society demonstrate that significant

barriers exist to achieving this aim. It was clear that time alone is not enough to develop

either numbers or range of connections. Membership of community groups can support the

development of some relationships (for example with people from the same country or

people of the same religion), but this does not guarantee a mixture of ‘bonds’, ‘bridges’ and

‘links’.

Implications: Refugee community organisations and other community groups are

potentially very strategic in creating opportunities to support the development of a full range

of social connections. This data underlines the importance of ensuring that:

55

community groups are open and inclusive,

members are sufficiently informed about resources beyond themselves to act as

effective conduits of knowledge,

community groups bring new migrants and the established Scottish population

together.

4.1.6. Awareness of services

Awareness of services amongst participants in this study is lower than might be expected –

including awareness of mental health support and advice services. Generally they either did

not have access to extensive informal networks through which to learn about support, or

their networks appeared to be detached from wider support services. They did however talk

about using the internet to access information.

Implications: The data seems to suggest that either the participants do not see available

services as relevant to their needs and/or they are not aware of the existence of certain

services. Given the crucial role of informal networks in sharing information, this might point

to the use of some form of peer advocacy to mobilise existing connections. Also more

attention could be paid to strategic signposting. The data indicates that certain voluntary

sector organisations and community groups will be perceived as a trusted source of

information. It also indicates that some private sector organisations – such as shops – might

be mobilised to reach isolated people. Asylum seekers and refugees often rely on the

internet for information, which suggests that improving the design and accessibility of on-line

information with their needs in mind could have significant impact. This would need to be

prioritised along with improving free access to the internet and training in information

technology skills.

4.1.7. Trust and fear of engagement

This group of single Afghan and Iranian refugee men were very reluctant to engage with the

research workshops (even though the team were introduced by the housing provider)

suggesting that they might also be resistant to engagement with other community activities

and services. Of those that did engage they reported highest levels of trust in authority

figures (Police, lawyers) and formal support services (GPs, case workers, social services).

There was a lack of engagement in third sector agencies and community organisations.

Implications: Reluctance to engage with any outsider will inevitably lead to isolation and

reduce access to both informal and formal support. There are good levels of trust for a few

organisations but low levels of trust for most. Could the trust that does exist be mobilised to

focus signposting to other agencies? The data suggests that service providers need to work

56

on establishing trust with refugee communities. One-to-one peer mentoring or ‘buddying’

schemes would help by establishing a relationship of trust through which others can be

fostered. A possible way forward may be for agencies to hold specific events for refugees in

partnership with refugee community organisations, based on the seminar model developed

by the Scottish Refugee Council30.

4.1.8. Access to Rights

This group showed very little awareness of institutions in wider UK society. They did not

demonstrate awareness of routes through which they might challenge decisions or quality of

service provision (for example regarding housing or health care).

Implications: Access to rights depends on confidence as well as knowledge – both of

which are lacking amongst isolated asylum seekers and refugees. Whilst it would be very

difficult to empower the most vulnerable individuals directly, this does once again reinforce

the importance of investing in the support of refugee community organisations and other

community groups to enable them to act both as conduits of information as well as

advocates for rights. Given the low levels of engagement with advice agencies such as CAB

and law centres, there needs to be a focus on signposting to these sources of support.

30

Scottish Refugee Council, Holistic Integration Service 2013- 2016.

57

4.2 Recommendations for policy & practice

We suggest that in order to protect and promote the mental health and well-being of asylum

seekers and refugees in Glasgow policy makers and practitioners should:

The findings and conclusions of this study have been shared and discussed with a range of

stakeholders in Glasgow (Appendix 5). The following recommendations emerged through

consultation:

Address the causes of insecurity and instability

Directly address causes of insecurity and instability through policy advocacy on: the

asylum process, transition to new refugee status, and family reunification.

Avoid unnecessary destabilisation by minimising home moving through enabling

asylum seekers to remain in the same property on receipt of status.

Avoid unnecessary destabilisation by ensuring that refugees have access to

sustainable housing options within 28 days of receiving status.

The Poverty Leadership Panel’s Action Plan should reflect the experience of

asylum seekers and refugees, given that one of the key priorities is to involve people

with direct experience of poverty.

Poverty acts as very real barrier to good health and well-being, engaging with

activities, other people and services – services need to build in capacity to

overcome poverty (e.g. waiving membership or attendance fees, providing travel

expenses), community groups should be encouraged to avoid or share participation

costs.

Recommendations

Address the causes of insecurity and instability, (uncertainty

of asylum claims, family reunion and poverty).

Provide support and accompaniment to asylum seekers and

refugees in tackling practical problems.

Support every asylum seeker and refugee to develop intimate

and reciprocal friendships.

Work through trusted people and organisations to signpost

information and build engagement with wider resources and

services.

58

Improve access and knowledge of free activities (e.g. libraries, museums, sports

facilities).

Provide support and accompaniment to asylum seekers and refugees in

tackling practical problems

Strengthen support through advisory services (Migrant Help, Glasgow's Advice and

Information Network (GAIN31)

Extend peer mentoring schemes so that a mentor is available for every person who

wishes one.

To support them through transition, asylum seekers and refugees need immediate

access to language learning support on arrival in the country.

Language courses should build in the direct development of cultural knowledge and

help participants to learn local colloquial uses of language.

Building on the work of the ‘Sanctuary’ staff training32, acknowledge that these

adverse circumstances are undermining for mental health and well-being and provide

training for mental health practitioners and other front-line service providers to

ensure that they are aware of the pressures affecting asylum seekers and refugees.

Support every asylum seeker and refugee to develop intimate and reciprocal

friendships

Language teaching providers should try to create social opportunities for service

users. Language courses should strategically support the opportunity to develop

friendships, for example through the ‘Languages café’ model33.

Housing providers can play a crucial role in preventing isolation. Housing Officers,

Concierges, and other case workers provide a unique means of communication and

link between individual refugees and community groups and services. Records

enabling the identification of new refugees would facilitate outreach to those who

have become withdrawn and reluctant to engage.

Buddying, peer mentoring, accompanying should be extended to ensure that every

asylum seeker/refugee has the opportunity for linking into a one-to-one relationship

with someone who can help them to navigate their new lives (for as long as is

needed). Ideally they should start with someone of own language group and

transition to someone from Scottish background (e.g. scheme for early retired

people?).

31

GAIN: http://www.gain4u.org.uk/ 32

http://www.mwcscot.org.uk/media/186818/sanctuary.pdf 33

http://www.languagecafe.eu/en/intro.html

59

Community planning partnerships should support community integration initiatives

(through refugee community organisations and other community groups) in building

relationships between new and established refugees and across people with

Scottish and other backgrounds.

Service providers and community groups should build in opportunities for

volunteering wherever possible. In particular there is a need for more opportunities

that don’t require confidence or particular skills and language in order to widen

access to volunteering and draw on the rich experience asylum seekers and

refugees have to offer.

Work through trusted people and organisations to signpost information and

build engagement with wider resources and services.

Service providers should ensure that welcome packs and other basic service

information are up-to-date, relevant and made available at time of need and

recognition of relevance (and be available in an appropriate range of languages).

A good quality, confidential interpretation service with sufficient capacity will

continue to be essential to ensure equitable access to services and rights.

Policy makers and service providers should develop clear pathways in to and out

of services based on an understanding of the integration journey.

Service providers should provide staff training on how to engage with asylum

seekers and refugees in culturally appropriate ways and how to signpost and/or refer

to other services, building on the Sanctuary training34 for front-line staff.

Service providers should ensure key people and places that are already trusted

and act as conduits for information and connection should be mobilised to share

information. For example certain shops, colleges, libraries. Develop community

knowledge about services and rights by disseminating information about rights

through refugee community organisations, community seminars (such as the SRC

programme35) and peer educators.

Service providers should use the internet more strategically, ensuring information,

navigation and application processes are provided in an accessible manner using

different languages as appropriate.

Further Education Colleges should maintain and improve access to the internet

through access to computers on-line and access to IT skills.

34

http://www.mwcscot.org.uk/media/186818/sanctuary.pdf 35

http://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/

60

References Ager, A. & Strang, A. (2004) ‘Indicators of integration: Final report.’ Home Office

Development and Practice Report 28. London: Home Office.

Ager, A. & Strang, A. (2008) ‘Understanding integration: a conceptual framework’,

Journal of Refugee Studies, 21 (2):166–91.

Cardozo, B., Bilukha, O. et al. (2004). “Mental health, social functioning, and disability in

post-war Afghanistan.” JAMA292 (5): 575-584.

Castles, S., Korac, M., Vasta, M. &Vertovec, S. (2002) ‘Integration: Mapping the field’,

Oxford: Oxford University.

Green, M., (2006) ‘They think we are nothing. A survey of destitute asylum seekers and

refugees in Scotland’, Refugee Council, available at:

http://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0000/0105/full_report_they_think_we_are_nothing_destitution_a

mong_asylum_seekers.pdf

Home Office (2013) Immigration Statistical Report Jan-March 2013

Knifton, L. (2012) ‘Understanding and addressing the stigma of mental illness with ethnic

minority communities.’ Health Sociology Review21 (3): 287–298.

Mulvey, G. (2010) ‘When policy creates politics: the problematizing of immigration and the

consequences for refugee integration.’ Journal of Refugee Studies vol. 23, no. 4

Mulvey, G. (2013) ‘In search of normality: Refugee Integration in Scotland’, Scottish Refugee

Council. http://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_and_research/research_reports

Phillimore, J. (2012) ‘Implementing integration in the UK: Lessons for integration theory,

policy and practice’ Policy & Politics http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557312x13323363616764

Phillimore, J. & Goodson, L. (2008) ‘Making a place in the global city: the relevance of

indicators of integration’. Journal of Refugee Studies21 (3): 305–325.

Procter, N. G. (2006). 'They first killed his heart (then) he took his own life'. Part 2: Practice

implications. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12(1), 42-48.

Putnam, R. D. (1993) ‘The prosperous community: social capital and public life’, American Prospect 13: 35–42.

61

Putnam, R. D. (2000) ‘Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community’

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Quinn, N., Shirjeel, S., Siebelt, L. & Donnelly, R. (2011) ‘An evaluation of the Sanctuary Community

Conversation programme to address mental health stigma with asylum seekers and refugees in

Glasgow’, Mental Health Foundation.

Quinn, N. (2013) ‘Participatory action research with asylum seekers and refugees

experiencing stigma and discrimination: The experience from Scotland’, Disability &

Society, doi:10.1080/09687599.2013.769863

Scottish Government (2009) ‘Towards a mentally flourishing Scotland: Policy and Action

Plan 2009–2011’. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2009/05/06154655/0

Scottish Government (2012) Mental Health Strategy: 2012-2015. Edinburgh: Scottish

Government.http://www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/0040/00408481.pdf.

Scottish Government (2013) ‘New Scots: Integrating Refugees in Scotland’s Communities:

2014-2017’ http://www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/0043/00439604.pdf

Silove, D., Steel, Z. & Watters, C. (2000) ‘Policies of deterrence and the mental health of

asylum seekers.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(5), 604-611.

Strang, A. & Ager, A. (2010) ‘Refugee Integration: Emerging trends and remaining agendas.’

Journal of Refugee Studies Vol. 23 (4), 589-607.

Threadgold, T. & Court, G. (2005) ‘Refugee Inclusion: a literature review’, Cardiff School of

Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies.

Watters, C. (2010). ‘Migrants, refugees and mental health care in Europe’. Hellenic Journal

of Psychology, 7, 21-37.

Woolcock, M. (1998) ‘Social capital and economic development: Towards a theoretical

synthesis and policy framework’. Theory and Society 27(2): 151–208.

62

Appendix

APPENDIX 1: Indicators of Integration Framework

Ager, A. & Strang, A. (2008) ‘Understanding integration: a conceptual framework’,

Journal of Refugee Studies, 21 (2):166–91.

Indicators of Integration Framework(Ager & Strang, 2008)

Employment Housing Education Health

BondsBridges Links

Language &

Cultural

Knowledge

Security &

Stability

Rights &

Citizenship

Markers &

Means

Social

Connection

Facilitators

Foundation

63

APPENDIX 2: Sample Information Sheet

An opportunity to meet other local people and learn about local services Please join us!

This event is for you if you are,

A man over the age of 18 years

You originally came from Afghanistan or Iran

You have come to Glasgow as a refugee

Wed 27th

February, 11.30 – 2.00pm

TOWNHEAD COMMUNITY HALL

7 ST MUNGO PLACE

G4 OPB

A light lunch will be provided

The meeting will provide an opportunity to meet others and learn more about local opportunities and

services here in Glasgow.

It is part of a research study (run by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Queen Margaret

University, Edinburgh) to explore social connections and refugees mental health in north and east

Glasgow. There is a concern that many refugees feel very isolated and this damages their mental

health and their ability to make a new life in Scotland. We would like to meet men who do not feel

isolated and also those who do feel isolated. There are two important aims of this study:

AIMS: 1) That all participants will enjoy participating in the event, meet new people and learn more

about useful local opportunities and services.

2) That we – the housing providers and the research team – will learn more about how to

support refugees more effectively as they adapt to life in Scotland. (The results of the study

will be shared with local service providers to help inform what type of services they need to

provide in the future and may be published in a journal or presented at a conference)

If you agree to participate in this study we will:

Visit you at home very briefly (about 10 minutes) and ask you to complete a short questionnaire

about how many people you meet in your normal life at the moment

64

Ask you to attend a meeting near your home (lasting about 2 and half hours) and join in some

group activities, individual activities and some discussion together. The meeting will be led by a

research team, supported by interpreters (these may include both men and women). All

information collected will be anonymous and will be stored securely and then destroyed once the

research is complete. The groups will each develop a ‘maps’ of local support and these will be left

with project workers to use in any way that is helpful to the community.

The research team will not be able to advise or help with anyone’s personal circumstances, but will

share information about support services. Joining in the study will not harm or benefit your access to

rights or services.

If you would like to contact an independent person, who knows about this project but is not involved in

it, you are welcome to contact Elodie Mignard, Housing Development Officer, Scottish Refugee

Council. Contact details are given below.

Independent adviser: Elodie Mignard

Housing Development Officer

Scottish Refugee Council

elodie.mignard@scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk

Researcher: Dr Alison B Strang

Senior Research Fellow

Institute for International Health and

Development, Queen Margaret University,

EdinburghEH21 6UU

astrang@qmu.ac.uk

65

APPENDIX 3: Interpreter Briefing Sheet

NHS GREATER GLASGOW & CLYDE AND QUEEN MARGARET UNIVERSITY

REFUGEE SOCIAL CONNECTIONS STUDY, FEB/MARCH 2013

Many refugees feel very isolated and this damages their mental health and their ability to make a new life in

Scotland. This study is part of a research programme (run by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Queen

Margaret University, Edinburgh) to explore social connections and refugees mental health in north and east

Glasgow. We would like to meet refugee men from Afghanistan and Iran including those who do not feel isolated

and also those who do feel isolated. There are two important aims of this study:

AIMS: 1) That all participants will enjoy participating in the event, meet new people and learn more about useful

local opportunities and services.

2) That we – the housing providers and the research team – will learn more about how to support refugees

more effectively as they adapt to life in Scotland. (The results of the study will be shared with local service

providers to help inform what type of services they need to provide in the future and may be published in a

journal or presented at a conference)

Phases of the Study: 1) Housing association staff, researchers and interpreters visit tenants to introduce study, seek consent and

ask initial questions Monday 18thFeb

2) Data collection workshops:

Mon 18th

February 1 – 3.00pm

TOWNHEAD COMMUNITY HALL

7 ST MUNGO PLACE

Tues 26thFebruary, 1.30 –4.00pm

ST ROLLOX CHURCH

9 Fountainwell Road

Glasgow, G21 1TN

Wed 27th

February, 11.30 –

2.00pm

TOWNHEAD COMMUNITY HALL

7 ST MUNGO PLACE

Principles for interpreting:

1. Participants may be very emotionally vulnerable and therefore it is essential that all information shared during

this process is kept confidential.

2. In this study we will be interested in the exact words that participants use to discuss the questions that we

raise, and so will ask for direct translations of what is said (both by us the researchers and by participants)

wherever possible. We will discuss key words together before the data collection workshops. If there is any

ambiguity, please speak with a member of the research team.

Neil Quinn and Alison Strang

66

APPENDIX 4: Registration Questions

Social Connection and Refugee Mental Health in North and East Glasgow

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. It would help us to prepare for the meeting it you could

answer a few questions about your life here now. This information will not be shared with anyone else outside

the research team, will not affect any of your rights and will be destroyed after the meeting. You don’t need to

answer any of the questions if you would prefer not to.

1. How many people live with you in this flat?

2. How long have you lived in Glasgow?

3. How long have you lived at this address?

4. How old are you?

5. What is your first language?

6. How confident are you in using English? Response options: not able to converse(1)/not very

(2)confident/confident(3)

7. Would it help you if we provide an interpreter to support your participation in the event?

We are finding out how many people participants meet from day to day, could you tell me:

8. How many people – including those who live with you – did you speak to yesterday either face to face, on

the phone, through Skype?

9. Let’s think about last Friday (three days ago)?: How many people – including those who live with you –

did you speak to last Friday either face to face, on the phone, through Skype

10. Finally, let’s think about six days ago - last Tuesday: How many people – including those who live with

you – did you speak to last Tuesday either face to face, on the phone, through Skype?

Thank you for your help.

67

APPENDIX 5: Attendees at final stakeholders’ conference

Ann Forsyth NHS

Catherine Shields Social Work

Christine Palmer City of Glasgow College

Jacqueline Murray Greater Glasgow Police - Safer Communities

Holly Bear COMPASS

Janet Hayes NHS

Janice Mitchell NHS

Jim Battersby Glasgow Housing Association

Marlyn Barr Glasgow Kelvin College

Mary Kate Dickie Scottish Refugee Council

Mary McManus City of Glasgow College

Muriel Pearson Cranhill Community Church

Phil Arnold Red Cross Refugee Unit

Rosaline Martin EAL – Glasgow City Council

Selam (MSc student) COMPASS

Tony Devine Health Improvement

Wendy Gormley Glasgow Kelvin College

Aso Fotoohi Scottish Refugee Council

Maureen Morris PMA Steering Group

Robert Aldrige Homeless Action Scotland

John Mason MSP